Cleopatra

I saw the restored version of this film, which was funded by and shown on Turner Classic Television. Realizing that it was a filmed stage play done in 1912, I had no unrealistic expectations for the production values. And, as an early 20th century stage play, I thought it was quite good, But...and I still can't get over this...the soundtrack was so inappropriate that I had to watch the film with the TV muted. I have nothing against "modern" soundtracks for silent films, and in some cases, they work very well, such as Moroder's "Metropolis", but this was downright laughable in many places.

I'm amazed to see a 1912 feature that's almost 90 minutes long. By contrast, "From the Manger to the Cross" is under 70 min. The tinting and restoration are good, the modern music by Chantal Kreviazuk is interesting if unnecessary (there's no reason to be turned off by it--you can always play your own music!). The film is not in "pure" tableau style but in modified tableaus. That is, there is some cross-cutting from different locations, and dialogue cards do interrupt the shots. The first scene is even somewhat distracting in its cutaways to a man who is a short distance away. During the battle of Actium, the camera suddenly goes in for a series of near close-ups of Cleopatra and Antony from the waist up, and the entire scene is told in these alternating shots with captions. (A way to avoid staging a battle.) The scene in which she barges down the Nile and seduces Antony is a typical example of "film d'art" tableau style, with only dialogue interrupting the shot occasionally. The major lengthy sequence at the end, however, begins in two locations: in Cleo's chamber on an upper floor and outside on the ground below, and Antony is raised up through the window on a rope, then for the rest of the complex scene the camera pans right and left as called for by the action. Fascinating and typically noble.

This early silent (1912) is a bit creeky (canvas flats that move in the breeze and a ship pushed on from the wings) but is an early attempt to use ancient history as the inspiration for a film drama. Helen Gardner and her troupe filmed a stage production, typical for the time, with little awareness of the possibilities of the medium. The plot actually comes from another source than Shakespeare and is not the usual Anthony and Cleopatra story. It may be based on a French 19th century opera which, in turn, can be traced back to a short story by Alexander Pushkin. This film is an excellent example of the state of the art in the time that it was made.

I happened onto "Cleopatra" on Turner after it had begun, so I didn't know who made it or when. I figured it had to have been made early, as it appeared to be little more than a filmed stage play: tableaux shot by a static camera; moreover, there were absolutely no close-ups. And I gathered it was something of an early "indie," as the costumes were howlingly inauthentic, the sets amateurish and many of the actors "stagy."

I decided the film's date had to be early, around 1910, 1912. But because of the production's growing sophistication – towards the end of the film the camera got more frisky and intimate – it was like watching the vocabulary of cinema being developed before your eyes, like seeing a toddler, very unsteady at first, gaining better equilibrium and more assurance as we watch. While it never gets to the level of either art or storytelling mechanics that Griffith was employing contemporaneously, "Cleopatra" is a fascinating time capsule... It would be intriguing to see her movies in sequence (the presumption being each is better and more sophisticated). It's a shame that so many have disappeared forever.

I had never heard of Helen Gardner, an ambitious actress who opened her own studio. As Cleopatra, she was sort of an ur-vamp whose eye makeup, heft, extravagant gestures and bare feet were several years later appropriated by Theda Bara. She was obviously an important actress, auteur and entrepreneur who should be far more celebrated than she is.

One last point, which others have made but I would like to reiterate: the newly appended score was so annoying and obtrusive that I muted it. I used to accompany silent films when I was in college, so I have a fair idea of the appropriate musical vocabulary. I once saw a revival of "Wings" in New York, and the elderly accompanist simply played everything she remembered from the 1920s, regardless of the on-screen action. Biplanes strafed trenches and killed soldiers by the dozen to the strains of "I'll be down to get you in a taxi, honey." Many of the major silent movies had their own scores written by studio musicians and played either by orchestras or reduced to organ or piano arrangements. I doubt that Gardner's "Cleopatra" had its own score, but SURELY somebody could have produced something more consonant with the time and place of this movie, something that sounded like, well… silent movie music.

Steffan Aletti

Prominent stage actress of the day Helen Gardner never became part of the Hollywood scene. This production of Cleopatra was done at her eastern based studio and the supporting cast is made up of players from the Broadway stage. As such the film is a curiosity for those who want a glimpse of people on the stage in those years before World War I.

Ms. Gardner makes one buxom Cleopatra, one like you will not likely see again. But that Lillian Russell type figure was considered the standard of beauty back then. Wonder what Lillian Russell might have thought had she seen this film?

For 1912 it's a bit risqué. In addition to the standard story of Mark Antony and Cleopatra there's also a story line here about a humble fisherman who has the hots for his Queen and Cleo takes him on as a boy toy.

I really was not impressed with the added music soundtrack and singing of modern type music, jarringly out of place for the time. This really cries for a theater organ.

It's a museum this Cleopatra, nothing more.